mrPixel

Should we still be backing Ukraine?

223 posts in this topic

Up until recently I was for backing Ukraine, although, it did make me nervous with the threats of nuclear war by Putin. And, to be honest, the threats do still concern me. My initial reason for backing Ukraine is that I wanted to send us a message to bullies in the world. "NO, you cannot just run over a country without being met without opposition." We can't let Russia, China, N. Korea, and Iran do whatever the hell they want.

However, this thing with Ukraine is going on and on and there doesn't seem to be and end in sight. So, should we just let Russia have Ukraine? What are the consequences if the west were to back out? It's costing us endless amounts of money. Should we just count our losses and move on?

This may sound harsh, but war is fucking nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mrPixel

47 minutes ago, mrPixel said:

Up until recently I was for backing Ukraine, although, it did make me nervous with the threats of nuclear war by Putin. And, to be honest, the threats do still concern me. My initial reason for backing Ukraine is that I wanted to send us a message to bullies in the world. "NO, you cannot just run over a country without being met without opposition." We can't let Russia, China, N. Korea, and Iran do whatever the hell they want.

However, this thing with Ukraine is going on and on and there doesn't seem to be and end in sight. So, should we just let Russia have Ukraine? What are the consequences if the west were to back out? It's costing us endless amounts of money. Should we just count our losses and move on?

This may sound harsh, but war is fucking nasty.

   I agree with the last part, war really is nasty. It's like that game called Detroit Become Human, some choices there are just intense.

   I was initially pro NATO on this, and supportive of the west in general backing Ukruane. But I'm starting to see John Mearsheimer's point of view on this and leaning to that side.  Long term it's difficult for the USA ti just perpetually back Ukraine when it's also ruining Ukraine in the process.

   Imo worst case is a divided between western Ukraine as NATI, and eastern Ukraine as BRISK, with a small natural river as a border. Nightmare because domestic terrorists could easily escalate conflict in such a close border, plus Russia views NATO as existential monsters being a bit invasive to their territories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have never tried to include Ukraine in NATO and should have pushed for peace in the first place 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mrPixel said:

Up until recently I was for backing Ukraine, although, it did make me nervous with the threats of nuclear war by Putin. And, to be honest, the threats do still concern me. My initial reason for backing Ukraine is that I wanted to send us a message to bullies in the world. "NO, you cannot just run over a country without being met without opposition." We can't let Russia, China, N. Korea, and Iran do whatever the hell they want.

However, this thing with Ukraine is going on and on and there doesn't seem to be and end in sight. So, should we just let Russia have Ukraine? What are the consequences if the west were to back out? It's costing us endless amounts of money. Should we just count our losses and move on?

This may sound harsh, but war is fucking nasty.

the war looks like it will drag on for a while and with no real end. 

There should be a negotiated peace.

Both sides have to make concessions. 

And the NATO countries that don't pay their fair share should stop being cucks and contribute or kicked out. Trump is an arse, but he had a point there. If that means Denmark or Norway are unprotected, so be it. They agreed to join the body with all of the benefits, and nobody forced them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same said interview, Carlson himself said that he thought Putin's rationale for invading was slim. There is no evidence of Nazis in Ukraine, and there are as many if not more neo-Nazi groups in Russia. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia has refused all peace deals. They want the territory they have, to re-arm, regroup and go again. If it's 5 year, ten years, doesn't matter. Short of putting Ukraine in NATO, the conflict in a stalemate is the only way to stalemate Russian Imperial ambitions. Until a new leader of Russia, who isn't from their old USSR cronies trying to recreate a world that no longer exists is put into power.

The conflict now is exactly where NATO want it, as far away from their borders as possible, with Russia locked unable to break the lines and slowly running their own country into the ground trying. It took longer as BRICS and neighboring countries gave them economic relief but it has neutered Russia's expansion for a decade or so. Hopefully long enough for Putin to die of old age and someone better (from our point of view less expansionist) to come into power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think there should be a peace deal where Russia keeps the 20% they have taken and Crimea and Ukraine keeps the rest of the land.

Also, Russian is made an official language for Ukraine just like it was before 2014 and Ukraine cuts all military ties with the West and becomes a neutral state.

Also, they can be allowed to join the EU as long as their foreign policy is somewhat catering to Russia.

Lastly, they should treat the Russian minority that will remain with equal rights to Ukrainians.

On Russia side, they should prosecute some of their military people for war crimes and give some sort of financial compensation to the destroyed parts of Ukraine that will not be annexed by Russia.

Now whether this is a fair deal, who knows. But to me it would be the most realistic in terms of pleasing both sides.

It is the West job to ensure this happens. At the moment Russia will want to take half the country, pay no reparations and trial nobody for war crimes (of course not top generals or Putin but perhaps some of the people responsible for Mariupol or Bucha where most of the war crimes happened). . Neither will it allow the rest of Ukraine to join the EU. The West job is to ensure this does not happen. 

I was thinking perhaps funding Ukraine militarily to the point where Russia is forced to negotiate rather than face off against a buffed up Ukraine could be an option. So to use the 60 billion as a tool of deterrence against further fighting rather than using it to actually fight. What do you guys think about that? I have not heard  this anywhere, would be curious to hear your thoughts.

However I am very against this retarted nationalism by Zelensky and some Ukranians to "fight until total victory and we get back Crimea". It is totally not grounded in reality and is destroying Ukraine.

They accepted loosing Crimea over 10 years ago already, get over it.

It is not worth loosing half the country just for that...

Edited by Karmadhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen

15 hours ago, zazen said:

 

   Yeah that 3 hour podcast with Lex Friedman and John Mearsheimer was nice.

   However other podcasts were much better that interview John Mearsheimer and Lex Friedman is a grifter. Have seen a few criticisms of him to have reasonable doubt to distrust Lex Friedman as a credible podcast host, he's too friendly with Joe Rogan and Elon Musk the billionaire narcissist. Lex Friedmen is the same guy who platforms Destiny, who happens to have smeared and defamed John Mearsheimer, predictably as he's pro west and pro NATO and American. Mr. Girl was right to be a bit distrustful of these 2 and it's remarkable how he predicted those negative outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Danioover9000 Mearchimer is so wrong. He makes 2 claims about why the war is the West's fault.
1. America created the Maidan/Orange Revolution and is threatening to do the same in Moscow. The only evidence of this is ~4 million dollars going from America's 'National Endowment for Democracy' to pro-democracy NGOs in Ukraine. The conspiracy theory that he is referring to is so fucking wild and retarded. Apparently, George Soros is a CIA puppet who is also in on it. This video explains the roots of this conspiracy theory and how it made its way to Putin: 

2. Nato expansion threatens Russia. The story is that Russia has a long history of being invaded and is therefore right to take NATO as a threat. The problem is that it has never been invaded since it acquired nukes. Mershimer never paints a scenario of how NATO would damage Russia. Well, actually NATO does threaten Russia, but only in the way that the police threaten gangsters. Also, Putin feels threatened by NATO because he thinks it's puppeteered by the same deep state that he thinks caused the Orange Revolution. He is fighting a ghost.

NATO expansion might have caused Putin to fall for these insane ideas but it's not obvious that the cause isn't instead thatUkraine is liberalizing and democratizing. 


The road to God is paved with bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/1/2024 at 5:46 PM, BlueOak said:

Russia has refused all peace deals. They want the territory they have, to re-arm, regroup and go again. If it's 5 year, ten years, doesn't matter. Short of putting Ukraine in NATO, the conflict in a stalemate is the only way to stalemate Russian Imperial ambitions. Until a new leader of Russia, who isn't from their old USSR cronies trying to recreate a world that no longer exists is put into power.

The conflict now is exactly where NATO want it, as far away from their borders as possible, with Russia locked unable to break the lines and slowly running their own country into the ground trying. It took longer as BRICS and neighboring countries gave them economic relief but it has neutered Russia's expansion for a decade or so. Hopefully long enough for Putin to die of old age and someone better (from our point of view less expansionist) to come into power.

Putin already confirmed he is not planning on attacking NATO.

The war is not “where NATO want it”, they thought it’d be over by now and running out of people in Ukraine with no sight of victory

this war has made Russia stronger than ever, it now weathered the sanctions, is closer to China and Turkey, and has a massive military with more experience.

we already had leaked emails from US gov officials admitting the entire Russian political establishment saw Ukraine joining NATO as a red line, Putin’s replacement will probably agree with his policy or be even more extreme. It could take 20 years for Putin to die, Ukraine won’t last 10 at this rate.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Raze said:

Putin already confirmed he is not planning on attacking NATO.

The war is not “where NATO want it”, they thought it’d be over by now and running out of people in Ukraine with no sight of victory

this war has made Russia stronger than ever, it now weathered the sanctions, is closer to China and Turkey, and has a massive military with more experience.

we already had leaked emails from US gov officials admitting the entire Russian political establishment saw Ukraine joining NATO as a red line, Putin’s replacement will probably agree with his policy or be even more extreme. It could take 20 years for Putin to die, Ukraine won’t last 10 at this rate.

Russia's economy is weaker than its ever been. They've lost their main customers for their main export, energy, nobody in Europe (their primary income) is going to rely on Russia as the sole provider of their energy supplies, given the blackmail and hostile relations they have attempted during the war.

Their stockpiles of USSR Weapons are trashed. They are using WW2 rifles, 60-year-old tanks, and some older than that. All their professional soldiers and many of their best officer core are gone, with nobody to train the next generation. 

Their population crisis has got worse not better, which is one of the driving points of fighting the war, to fix that and shorten their borders so they can hold their vast territory with less soldiers. Right now their border is significantly longer, and they've hostile territory they will need to police for several decades if not longer. They have killed or crippled hundreds of thousands of their own people, or the people that are supposedly going to be the next generation, which will be a burden both in single-parent homes but also for the disabled soldiers needing assistance for the rest of their lives.

Their international relations are on fire. A significant amount of countries want to undermine them now, they have created their victim narrative and brought it to life. A self-fulfilling prophecy as it often is with fascist states. 

Ukraine is lasting, if it gets more ammunition it will push Russia back further, its all about how much we are willing to send. NATO is happy if the war stays as far from their borders as possible, so their countries are not threatened. That's why this deadlock has been created and maintained. If the US or Europe wants Russia obliterated they will be, they don't, they want a frozen war not a hot one that draws in more states.

Putin has threatened several times to attack NATO. He wants to rebuild the USSR, this is his eighth war to do so. Moldova is likely next but that depends how well he does in Ukraine, then the baltics are possible. Its less likely now because the Russians have realized they are not gods, or a superpower anymore that are capable of fighting the industrial might of the entire Western world alone.

Putin's replacement could be anything but there are fewer and fewer ex KGB USSER cronies left that support him, I think there were a couple of dozen last I heard, not least of which because Putin kills all capable leaders. Putin's replacement could be what we consider the devil but its unlikely he will have the same sentiment about an empire that no longer exists, which it's well-documented that Putin does.

As always, Russia threatens countries, they apply to join NATO. It's something no Russian supporter has ever or will ever be able to admit, because to do so they would have realise there were victims and concerns, and humanity on the other side of the divide. That these countries existed independently with their own concerns. I can fully understand that NATO borders getting closer worries people who view NATO as the enemy, but nobody else is capable of mirroring this in reverse to me. Moreover understanding that people outside of Russia or America, in countries along borders have their own free will, history, thoughts, challenges, problems and concerns, and their own thoughts on matters.

Many voices not one, can't be appreciated by Russia.
One voice not many, can't be appreciated by NATO.

That duality isn't closing anytime soon folks. 

*I could talk about globalization breaking down and the knock-on effect again on our quality of lives, but this is long enough already, and people want that anti globalist reality as if it benefits them so *shrug*.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia's economy is weaker than its ever been. They've lost their main customers for their main export, energy, nobody in Europe (their primary income) is going to rely on Russia as the sole provider of their energy supplies, given the blackmail and hostile relations they have attempted during the war.

Their stockpiles of USSR Weapons are trashed. They are using WW2 rifles, 60-year-old tanks, and some older than that. All their professional soldiers and many of their best officer core are gone, with nobody to train the next generation. 

Their population crisis has got worse not better, which is one of the driving points of fighting the war, to fix that and shorten their borders so they can hold their vast territory with less soldiers. Right now their border is significantly longer, and they've hostile territory they will need to police for several decades if not longer. They have killed or crippled hundreds of thousands of their own people, or the people that are supposedly going to be the next generation, which will be a burden both in single-parent homes but also for the disabled soldiers needing assistance for the rest of their lives.

Their international relations are on fire. A significant amount of countries want to undermine them now, they have created their victim narrative and brought it to life. A self-fulfilling prophecy as it often is with fascist states. 

Ukraine is lasting, if it gets more ammunition it will push Russia back further, its all about how much we are willing to send. NATO is happy if the war stays as far from their borders as possible, so their countries are not threatened. That's why this deadlock has been created and maintained. If the US or Europe wants Russia obliterated they will be, they don't, they want a frozen war not a hot one that draws in more states.

Putin has threatened several times to attack NATO. He wants to rebuild the USSR, this is his eighth war to do so. Moldova is likely next but that depends how well he does in Ukraine, then the baltics are possible. Its less likely now because the Russians have realized they are not gods, or a superpower anymore that are capable of fighting the industrial might of the entire Western world alone.

Putin's replacement could be anything but there are fewer and fewer ex KGB USSER cronies left that support him, I think there were a couple of dozen last I heard, not least of which because Putin kills all capable leaders. Putin's replacement could be what we consider the devil but its unlikely he will have the same sentiment about an empire that no longer exists, which it's well-documented that Putin does.

As always, Russia threatens countries, they apply to join NATO. It's something no Russian supporter has ever or will ever be able to admit, because to do so they would have realise there were victims and concerns, and humanity on the other side of the divide. That these countries existed independently with their own concerns. I can fully understand that NATO borders getting closer worries people who view NATO as the enemy, but nobody else is capable of mirroring this in reverse to me. Moreover understanding that people outside of Russia or America, in countries along borders have their own free will, history, thoughts, challenges, problems and concerns, and their own thoughts on matters.

Many voices not one, can't be appreciated by Russia.
One voice not many, can't be appreciated by NATO.

That duality isn't closing anytime soon folks. 

*I could talk about globalization breaking down and the knock-on effect again on our quality of lives, but this is long enough already, and people want that anti globalist reality as if it benefits them so *shrug*.

If Ukraine loses and Russia does not attack NATO after that, will you admit your analysis was wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

44 minutes ago, Raze said:

If Ukraine loses and Russia does not attack NATO after that, will you admit your analysis was wrong?

It's all ifs and uncertainty. It's that uncertainty that people look to correct by increasing their ground forces, and pushing their own influence outward, which leads us to the situation we are in now.

All countries on earth push their spheres of influence outward in different ways until they hit one another. Some just do it more aggressively. If Russia had steamrolled Ukraine and NATO had broken apart as it looked like it might a few years ago, then further invasion was all but guaranteed. I was a in panic here at the start of this war and I wasn't the only one.

Now its a lesser chance, Finland and Sweden are helping to guard a critical stretch of water. Russia's armed forces and equipment stocks have taken a battering. Poland has really taken it seriously as they'd be on the front lines, massively increasing their army. Russia keeps telling Poland 'We gave you that territory', and Belarus likes to test them now and again, so it's putting them in a defensive stance. Ditto the Baltics. Russia is looking to invade Moldova right now, that's why there is a breakaway republic it keeps talking about. If it gets Moldova it could encourage it to keep taking bitesize chunks of former USSR territory as it has done for 8 wars so far over the last 30 years or so. If it can't take European territory it'll go south again. There is a russian population in those baltic states, and Russia could cut the region off from Kaliningrad as people often fear, using a strong enough armored push.

There is no guarantee, which is why people are freezing the conflict, because it then becomes an uncertainty they can have some control over. It depends on how badly Russia is really hurting, and how much more stomach Putin has for a fight 10 years from now. If we'd have just rolled over and let them take Ukraine Raze, Putin would be somewhere in Europe, NATO would be a laughing stock and we'd be in WW3 by now with individual countries choosing to fight the threat. The only reason some of those Eastern European countries didn't send troops (they keep hinting they might) is America was there holding things together in a unified alliance.

If America laxes off like it looks like it is doing, more calls for action come from those populations - because they are losing, family, and friends, getting more and more refugees, and their own countries are close to the front line causing uncertainty, instability, economic impact, and fear.

So if Russia does not attack NATO will I have been wrong there was a danger they might? No. There is always a danger with Russia, which is why countries join NATO! Go talk to someone in Finland or Eastern Europe if they trust Russia as a country. It depends on how successfully Russia is held in place by Western weapons and Ukrainian bravery. 

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

37 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

It's all ifs and uncertainty. It's that uncertainty that people look to correct by increasing their ground forces, and pushing their own influence outward, which leads us to the situation we are in now.

All countries on earth push their spheres of influence outward in different ways until they hit one another. Some just do it more aggressively. If Russia had steamrolled Ukraine and NATO had broken apart as it looked like it might a few years ago, then further invasion was all but guaranteed. I was a in panic here at the start of this war and I wasn't the only one.

Now its a lesser chance, Finland and Sweden are helping to guard a critical stretch of water. Russia's armed forces and equipment stocks have taken a battering. Poland has really taken it seriously as they'd be on the front lines, massively increasing their army. Russia keeps telling Poland 'We gave you that territory', and Belarus likes to test them now and again, so it's putting them in a defensive stance. Ditto the Baltics. Russia is looking to invade Moldova right now, that's why there is a breakaway republic it keeps talking about. If it gets Moldova it could encourage it to keep taking bitesize chunks of former USSR territory as it has done for 8 wars so far over the last 30 years or so. If it can't take European territory it'll go south again. There is a russian population in those baltic states, and Russia could cut the region off from Kaliningrad as people often fear, using a strong enough armored push.

There is no guarantee, which is why people are freezing the conflict, because it then becomes an uncertainty they can have some control over. It depends on how badly Russia is really hurting, and how much more stomach Putin has for a fight 10 years from now. If we'd have just rolled over and let them take Ukraine Raze, Putin would be somewhere in Europe, NATO would be a laughing stock and we'd be in WW3 by now with individual countries choosing to fight the threat. The only reason some of those Eastern European countries didn't send troops (they keep hinting they might) is America was there holding things together in a unified alliance.

If America laxes off like it looks like it is doing, more calls for action come from those populations - because they are losing, family, and friends, getting more and more refugees, and their own countries are close to the front line causing uncertainty, instability, economic impact, and fear.

So if Russia does not attack NATO will I have been wrong there was a danger they might? No. There is always a danger with Russia, which is why countries join NATO! Go talk to someone in Finland or Eastern Europe if they trust Russia as a country. It depends on how successfully Russia is held in place by Western weapons and Ukrainian bravery. 

You’re saying Ukraine is winning and the Ukraine war is necessary to stop Russia from attacking NATO. If Ukraine loses and they don’t attack NATO, that indeed means you were wrong as Ukraine wasn’t winning and what you claim was stopping Russia from attacking is gone.

By this logic every country could be constantly attacking every other country because they “might one day attack them” and even if they don’t just say they still weren’t wrong because it might have happened. You can’t just start and support wars because on the off chance they might later attack someone else this will stop them. That also assumes the war weakens them, if Russia beats Ukraine they will potentially end up even stronger as it allows the government to consolidate power, have a larger military, and more resource access, meaning the Ukraine war actually made the potential for Russia attacking NATO worse.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Raze

This is a misunderstanding of the region's relationship with Russia. Over centuries eastern Europe and Russia have fought countless battles. I get why you say this, because hardly anyone talks about the underlying reasons and conditions why the war is being fought. we can go over them if you like, as we've done before. They instead default to the easy NATO borders or Putin is a Bad Man simple explanations. While these things are both true from different points of view, they are a fraction of the reasons for the war. No war is fought for one reason, with just one consideration, it is a complex geopolitical calculation made usually by many people, over many years. However the sound-byte is easier to communicate if we say its just this or this, as people are prone to do in conversation with nice simple one-line answers.

Every country is constantly testing its neighbors yes. Because a country is a collection of individuals, groups, and institutions that don't see a line on a map and halt their interests at that line.

Generally, war does not strengthen countries in the modern age, it is too costly. When one man can kill so many with the push of a button, and so many resources go into creating a complex and effective military. Countries are interwoven on many levels and these tend to be ripped apart in wars with neighbors. The damage done to a country can take generations to recover. Adding to that in a multipolar world, the sides are reinforced so they fight longer. In ages past yes I would agree, countries were more isolated and did not have assistance so readily given, so if a war could be won without too much loss it might strengthen the winner, but equally, the instability could end the empire or conqueror.

Again you can dismiss all I've said and are doing, to say X didn't happen so you are wrong, but that would take a dismissal of the threat Eastern and now much of Europe feels from Russia, something Russia have cultivated both in their constant aggressive actions, their state media apparatus, their threats and their food/energy/fuel blackmail. It would be dismissing all the wars till this point Russia have fought to retake control of former USSR states. It would be ignoring Putin's statements about regretting the loss of the USSR, and his pattern of wars to date, and his threats to take over more land.

More importantly, it would be dismissing all the lives that have been sacrificed to prevent this, for an absolute position you have taken, in a complex scenario that you have no hope of actually proving.

*Its important to understand its the danger and perceived threat that causes these cycles.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@Raze

This is a misunderstanding of the region's relationship with Russia. Over centuries eastern Europe and Russia have fought countless battles. I get why you say this, because hardly anyone talks about the underlying reasons and conditions why the war is being fought. we can go over them if you like, as we've done before. They instead default to the easy NATO borders or Putin is a Bad Man simple explanations. While these things are both true from different points of view, they are a fraction of the reasons for the war. No war is fought for one reason, with just one consideration, it is a complex geopolitical calculation made usually by many people, over many years. However the sound-byte is easier to communicate if we say its just this or this, as people are prone to do in conversation with nice simple one-line answers.

Every country is constantly testing its neighbors yes. Because a country is a collection of individuals, groups, and institutions that don't see a line on a map and halt their interests at that line.

Generally, war does not strengthen countries in the modern age, it is too costly. When one man can kill so many with the push of a button, and so many resources go into creating a complex and effective military. Countries are interwoven on many levels and these tend to be ripped apart in wars with neighbors. The damage done to a country can take generations to recover. Adding to that in a multipolar world, the sides are reinforced so they fight longer. In ages past yes I would agree, countries were more isolated and did not have assistance so readily given, so if a war could be won without too much loss it might strengthen the winner, but equally, the instability could end the empire or conqueror.

Again you can dismiss all I've said and are doing, to say X didn't happen so you are wrong, but that would take a dismissal of the threat Eastern and now much of Europe feels from Russia, something Russia have cultivated both in their constant aggressive actions, their state media apparatus, their threats and their food/energy/fuel blackmail. It would be dismissing all the wars till this point Russia have fought to retake control of former USSR states. It would be ignoring Putin's statements about regretting the loss of the USSR, and his pattern of wars to date, and his threats to take over more land.

More importantly, it would be dismissing all the lives that have been sacrificed to prevent this, for an absolute position you have taken, in a complex scenario that you have no hope of actually proving.

*Its important to understand its the danger and perceived threat that causes these cycles.

I’m not dismissing it, I’m asking what it would take to falsify the theory. If you say Ukraine will win and Russia will attack NATO if Ukraine is out of the picture, but if Ukraine loses and Russia still doesn’t attack NATO that doesn’t disprove the claim, it’s an unfalsifiable claim and impossible to bring up counter arguments that you’ll entertain 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now